General Discussion

Major Nikon

(36,925 posts)

48. Read it more closely

Sat Dec 17, 2011, 05:17 AM

Dec 2011

Section 1031, paragraph (e) which you referenced first was the language Feinstein added. It does NOT grant an exemption to US citizens. What it means is that IF (very big IF) the USSC decides the indefinite detention of US citizens in Guantanamo is unconstitutional, this law doesn't change that (which it couldn't anyway because acts of congress don't trump the Constitution). Well guess what? The USSC hasn't decided that question and may never, or if they do with the current court makeup are almost certainly going to favor the side of fascism. Padilla was only moved to a civilian court because of public pressure. No court ruling mandated that he be moved. So if "existing law" didn't protect Padilla, what makes you think it will protect you, me, or any other citizen? 1031(e) is a meaningless paragraph filled with empty words.

If you look at the second section you posted (APPLICABILITY) carefully you'll find the words "under this section". Those provisions only apply to section 1032 and not section 1031. So for the purposes of section 1031, which is where the problem is, the second part of what you posted is irrelevant. Nothing in this bill exempts US citizens from indefinite detention and in fact it expands the existing authority of the executive branch to potentially many more people. The authors of the bill (which included McCain) specifically told everyone it didn't exempt US citizens. So now (assuming the bill is signed) if you send a check to a charity you think is building a water well in Africa, but actually winds up in Al-Queda's coffers, you can be sent to Guantanamo for the rest of your natural life with no trial or even legal representation, and your only hope is that the Roberts court somehow finds it in their hearts to say you can't be.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

114 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Senator Al Franken: Why I Voted Against the National Defense Authorization Act [View all] kpete Dec 2011 OP

k&r... spanone Dec 2011 #1

Maybe he needs to read the bill. No reason for him to get hysterical Autumn Dec 2011 #2

Here you go... wakemewhenitsover Dec 2011 #33

OMG I didn't know we now had donheld Dec 2011 #35

Handier... fadedrose Dec 2011 #39

LOL Puglover Dec 2011 #58

Autumn, what is your legal training? Are you an expert on this? JDPriestly Dec 2011 #46

I found what I read to be completely, ridiculously vague. Autumn Dec 2011 #55

"Vague" is trouble CanonRay Dec 2011 #61

I am concerned about the arrest of protest leaders on terrorism grounds. rhett o rick Dec 2011 #70

I found this post at wariscrime.org explains the issues with NDAA very well justiceischeap Dec 2011 #62

Mother Jones disagrees stevenleser Dec 2011 #68

Their argument was extremely weak. They didnt talk about the rhett o rick Dec 2011 #69

you realize that Franken initially voted for it, right? stevenleser Dec 2011 #73

And your point is ....... nm rhett o rick Dec 2011 #74

It's not that simple Major Nikon Dec 2011 #77

Actually, no. Congress doesn't get to decide that. Lord Magus Dec 2011 #92

They do and already have Major Nikon Dec 2011 #105

The whole point of the article I posted justiceischeap Dec 2011 #110

in cetain circumstances it is not wrong stevenleser Dec 2011 #114

You know what govt lawyers do with a loophole when alone can't be printed on the internetz kenny blankenship Dec 2011 #109

k&r jannyk Dec 2011 #3

You know ProSense Dec 2011 #4

Franken LIES on PURPOSE! nt boston bean Dec 2011 #6

It's ridiculous for him to pull this out of his ass Autumn Dec 2011 #7

Franken has an Obama voodoo doll Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #19

Obama ProSense Dec 2011 #24

Oh please ProSense Dec 2011 #8

"people have different interpretations of things" JDPriestly Dec 2011 #49

This is the point that people with no foresight ignore. Jakes Progress Dec 2011 #65

We can take great comfort that not only will the incumbent president indepat Dec 2011 #91

well put JD stockholmer Dec 2011 #93

You're missing a sarcasm tag! green917 Dec 2011 #112

Uh, actually it can be proven that this bill will authorize the detention of truedelphi Dec 2011 #21

OK: ProSense Dec 2011 #29

Read it more closely Major Nikon Dec 2011 #48

Very good information to have. truedelphi Dec 2011 #89

Thanks for clarifying. Cameron27 Dec 2011 #101

Wait ProSense Dec 2011 #103

Believe whatever you want Major Nikon Dec 2011 #106

Al Franken meet the DNC bus. nt Bonobo Dec 2011 #26

You knew he was to liberal for the party. Jakes Progress Dec 2011 #66

Bull SaintPete Dec 2011 #28

Ah ProSense Dec 2011 #30

Did you support Bush's policies on the president having the power to name anyone an 'enemy combatant sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #41

I would be SHOCKED Aerows Dec 2011 #60

The personality cult pscot Dec 2011 #71

It's dangerous to Democracy Aerows Dec 2011 #98

Actually, many bills have ben passed under Obama that would have dotymed Dec 2011 #75

Exactly. bvar22 Dec 2011 #78

The problem is, when I ask these questions, and I really do want to know the sabrina 1 Dec 2011 #90

A great big bravo and for lagniappe, indepat Dec 2011 #94

Bravo for using the word lagniappe, cher :) Aerows Dec 2011 #99

This Times-Picayune subscriber from indepat Dec 2011 #108

so you must have been fine with the Patriot Act, because it only mentions terrorists StarsInHerHair Dec 2011 #43

Is the outrage over what the bill says, or what it doesn't say? SaintPete Dec 2011 #82

I am capable of reading the bill and read two provisions which JDPriestly Dec 2011 #47

The executive branch gets to answer those questions Major Nikon Dec 2011 #51

Irrational fear is the button pscot Dec 2011 #72

Here's the really funny part Major Nikon Dec 2011 #80

Gasp! The Yellow Peril! pscot Dec 2011 #113

Its WORSE than that. bvar22 Dec 2011 #79

More indepat Dec 2011 #95

The bill was authored behind closed doors Major Nikon Dec 2011 #50

Yes indeedy. Puglover Dec 2011 #59

The point is, that there is no reason to have any clauses related to indefinite detention... blackspade Dec 2011 #88

God bless him. n/t Betty Karlson Dec 2011 #5

Franken for 2016 DonCoquixote Dec 2011 #9

So what? I'm still disappointed in him. Under Dog Dec 2011 #15

He voted for the Feinstein amendment, I was confused because he voted for S. 1867 on Dec 1 jakeXT Dec 2011 #10

Whoa! Did I miss something? Under Dog Dec 2011 #11

yes jakeXT Dec 2011 #12

I guess it was better before, but now it's worse. redqueen Dec 2011 #13

That was on the Senate bill earlier this month. He voted "no" on the conference bill today karynnj Dec 2011 #14

And the difference between the two versions is that the conference bill moves the patrice Dec 2011 #17

No significant difference betwen the bills bhikkhu Dec 2011 #37

very good for Sen. Franken Douglas Carpenter Dec 2011 #16

I listened to him on Air America for a couple of years. Someone tell me just how Liberal he is, patrice Dec 2011 #18

When I heard him a few years back on Air truedelphi Dec 2011 #22

I remember that. He also had to be talked into being against War on Iraq. patrice Dec 2011 #25

I did not know that. I enjoy his comedy more than his notion of truedelphi Dec 2011 #87

Not very. I'd call him a moderate but for a US Senator, he is pretty far left. TheKentuckian Dec 2011 #84

Which color is Franken on this graph? How many millionaires directly create our laws? patrice Dec 2011 #20

Has Al made a statement about OWS? an article? Jim_Shorts Dec 2011 #44

I should look into that question . . . tomorrow. patrice Dec 2011 #45

Franken is white and Jewish Aerows Dec 2011 #102

That is a great graph. Major Hogwash Dec 2011 #111

Now that's a progressive's answer!! Wellstone ruled Dec 2011 #23

Love me some Al Sky Masterson Dec 2011 #27

So glad he's a Senator. UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2011 #31

good by to the right to a fair and speedy trial libodem Dec 2011 #32

Well now we know the truth. JoeyT Dec 2011 #34

Maybe I'm missing something - but he voted for it the other day bhikkhu Dec 2011 #36

Who else didn't vote for this bill? Major Hogwash Dec 2011 #38

Found it -- the 13 Senators voting against it were: Major Hogwash Dec 2011 #40

In other words, only reliable Democrats and the looneyest of the looneytarian Senators Major Nikon Dec 2011 #53

Since my 2 Senators both voted against this bill, I can guarantee you that nothing is wrong with it. Major Hogwash Dec 2011 #56

You DO realize that the person you are quoting from that Comedy Fiction... bvar22 Dec 2011 #81

Of course I do, muleskinner. Major Hogwash Dec 2011 #107

These are brave Senators for sure 4dsc Dec 2011 #57

Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #42

Excuse me??? Pachamama Dec 2011 #64

k&r n/t RainDog Dec 2011 #52

K&R. Others were paid to vote for it, but Al didn't. Fire Walk With Me Dec 2011 #54

It must be so frustrating for Franken to have made it to DC, gateley Dec 2011 #63

K & R !!! WillyT Dec 2011 #67

TYhe posters bashing Al in this thread should be ASHAMED of themselves. Odin2005 Dec 2011 #76

Paul Wellstone Under Dog Dec 2011 #100

Note To Obama Apologists: This Is How A REAL Democrat Thinks And Votes. Paladin Dec 2011 #83

Like this? bhikkhu Dec 2011 #97

I can understan why this is confusing SaintPete Dec 2011 #104

Under any interpretation sulphurdunn Dec 2011 #85

That would happen only in a totalitarian indepat Dec 2011 #96

Way to go Al Franken! blackspade Dec 2011 #86